JFK 1960: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"

[madfloridian]

His speech on September 12, 1960.

Read it and compare his views with the assault on women's rights this last week.

On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following is a transcript of Kennedy's speech:

Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

We need that America right now.

The separation of church and state should be absolute.

[RainDog]

1. kick. n/t

[Maccagirl]

2. That America is long dead.

I don't know who killed JFK (and I'm not sure 45 years on if it matters or not)-but the regression I have seen in my lifetime has rendered his murder meaningless. He ended up dying for nothing. I don't blame him-in my view the American people allowed our dreams to die-maybe as a society we never believed in those dreams anyway and were only lying to ourselves. Obama certainly must think that.

[madfloridian]

3. I think we are in a dangerous time right now.

And our party is not standing strong against this attempt at theocracy.

[mother earth]

22. I agree. Yet another important issue being ignored.

[pleah]

4. K&R

[Bitwit1234]

5. That was then and now we

have republicans who believe that the church should run the country. The republicans led the charge against President Kennedy because he was Catholic. They tried to say the Church would run the country.

Oh how times change now they are the ones who say the church should run the country. Oh how they want them some of those votes.

[csziggy]

30. In 1960, the Repubs were not worried that churches would run the country

They were worried that the Catholic Church would - and that did not fit the notions of the fundamentalists when then and now think that "Papists" are evil. At heart, I doubt most of the fundies are all that comfortable working with Catholics over things like abortion - each sect is just using the other as long as it is convenient for them.

If the fundies take full control of the US, I would be that they would try to outlaw Catholicism, as well as any other religion that does not follow their narrow, bigoted beliefs.

[TomCADem]

6. K & R!

[JonQ]

7. It would be nice to completely remove religion from the public sphere

we seem to be heading in that direction. At least in the sense that fewer and fewer people claim to be religious every year. Still a majority but the trend is a downwards one. Eventually it won't be much of an issue at all.

Although probably not in my lifetime.

[madfloridian]

9. What happened this week shows religion is powerful in Congress.

[JonQ]

10. Elaborate

please

[madfloridian]

12. Here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5228

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5200

[Overseas]

24. Sadly, Stupak is part of "The Family" a.k.a. The Christian Mafia

and they have quite a few other Democratic "members" as reported by Jeff Sharlet who wrote the definitive book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.

Sharlet told Maddow that as what Pitts has identified as part of the Family's objective to create a "god-led government," they need to infiltrate the Democrats, whom he suggested have been in denial about the attack:

Conservative Democrats have made this happen. I mean look: Here we are, with a fully Democratic government and Joe Pitts and his colleagues like Chris Smith and so on have just achieved a goal that they could not achieve in eight years of Bush. They've done it with Democratic help... You see a growing movement in the Democratic Party that we just haven't faced up to yet.
...
Some argue that you "reap what you sow" and that this is what Democrats pursuing the majority status got in exchange for their "big tent" strategy in 2006 and 2008. Yet of all the Democrats who are reported Family members who voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment but against the bill -- Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), John Tanner (D-TN), Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Dan Boren (D-OK), Heath Shuler (D-NC) -- only one was elected within those two recent cycles (Shuler, who reportedly lives at C Street with Stupak, took office in January 2007).
...
I honestly don't know what direction Stupak's true political compass points. He doesn't even appear to be a member of the Blue Dog coalition, though you wouldn't know it from recent media sources who mistakenly peg him otherwise. But his Family ties are undeniable. Bruce Wilson calls the congressman a "minister" for the Family, extrapolating from IRS 990 forms which the organization must fill out to preserve its tax-free status that Stupak must be one of those the organization defines as "persons in ministry."

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/941

[anonymous171]

8. Have fun enforcing that. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. No one can say JFK was ever afraid to defend separation of church and state

He also said:

Address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 21 April 1960:

"I believe the American people are more concerned with a man's views and abilities than with the church to which he belongs. I believe the founding fathers meant it when they provided in Article VI of the Constitution that there should be no religious test for public office. And I believe that the American people mean to adhere to those principles today."


In a letter to Glenn L. Archer, 23 February 1959:

"It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state as we understand it in the United States -- that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion."


"Look" interview, 3 March 1959:

"Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts--including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state."

I don't know which has degraded more since then, the state of organized religions in our country or the state of politics.

[bettyellen]

13. I am afaraid he said this in self defense-our Protestant nation had huge fears @a Catholic president

[Bluenorthwest]

18. When a minority speaks against a wrong that harms him or her

but also does great harm to the larger culture, and to other individuals, the fact that the speaker himself is one of the harmed parties is not of consequence. Unless you fell that JFK would have been all for blending Church and State had the majority been Catholic or he had been Protestant.

[bettyellen]

31. mmmm that;s kinda off point. i was merely putting it in context because the OP totally lacked it.

[Enthusiast]

27. Exactly right.

The RW had extreme hatred of the Catholic Church in those days. Actually there was a tangible anti-Catholic sentiment that ran through society that has mostly disappeared.

Of course many Christian sects today would disagree that Catholics are even Christians at all.

[madfloridian]

14. More from the speech.

"But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

What a difference then and now.

[saracat]

15. And yet some would compare those who stand for the complete reverse with JFK.

The delusion of those who cannot and will not understand history is remarkable.

[old mark]

16. The GOP was against religious influence in the government when the

religious person in qustion was a Democrat. Now that they think they are representing the old testament god fighting against the antichrist, they are all for it. Many of them think that Sarah Palin is the living reincarnation of Deborah from the old testament, who will lead her people -right wing americans-against the forces of evil-the left, gays, etc.

Some of the GOPers are just evil liars, some of them are delusional.


mark

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Um, no. Fundies explicitly do not believe in reincarnation

so no, many of them do not think that. They see her as a modern expression of that spirit, not as a reincarnation of that personage. Big difference. And frankly, one needs to have that level of disinformation to turn this religious problem into one of Party, when the DNC is ruled by anti-gay, anti-choice Christians such as Kaine, and Obama. Deal with it. Chairman Kaine of the DNC opposes all forms of protection for gay families, including civil unions on the basis of his 'faith'. Obama says my family is not a family, on the basis of his faith, which he does not practice, by the way, at all.
The DNC is headed by bigots.

[old mark]

20. They are all "christians" - bigots goes without saying.....

FWIW, I did not mean "reincarnation" literally, but spiritually, and I certainly do not mean to excludt the Democrats from the religious contamination that has been hurting our country for so long.

mark

[bettyellen]

32. um, you really want to point fingers about who does or does not practice faith to your satisfaction?

no a smart road to go down.

[Enthusiast]

28. And some of them are just downright

stupid.

"Some of the GOPers are just evil liars, some of them are delusional."

[Solly Mack]

17. K&R

[Joey Liberal]

21. Republicans suck. nt

[unaffiliated liberal]

23. May I ask

Exactly how do "faith based initiatives" exist, in ANY way, shape, or form, in a nation that purports to have separation of church and state?

[billh58]

35. As explained by

Candidate Obama during the Primary Campaign:

"First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/obamas-separation-church-and-state

This is a departure from the Rove/Dubya/Cheney neoconservative "anything goes" non-regulated approach to faith-based initiatives, and still takes advantage of helpful, secular, community-level outreach programs which have an established and successful framework in place.

[unaffiliated liberal]

40. And you really believe the fundies and other assorted wackos

are adhering to those rules? Don't make me laugh.

Even the Catholic church recently gave Washington DC an ultimatum when they were required to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians.

Separation of church and state is just that. Handing federal dollars to religious institutions is in violation of the constitutional restrictions requiring separation of church and state.

[billh58]

41. Actually, there is no

language in the Constitution of the United States of America which specifically provides for, or references, a "separation of church and state." The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The concept of "separation of church and state" has been addressed by the SCOTUS on several occasions, which has ruled on both sides of the issue. Most SCOTUS cases have dealt with religious practices and religious icons, and whether the "state" could prohibit, or restrict them. Most recently, however, the SCOTUS ruled in a 5-4 decision (Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation) that Dubya's "faith-based initiatives" programs could not be challenged by taxpayers, and were therefore "Constitutional."

My personal feelings are that the "state" should not get involved in ANY aspect of religion, but until the use of religious social networks specifically for secular social programs by the Federal Government becomes illegal, my (or anyone else's) personal feelings have no standing. I do not agree with recent decisions by the SCOTUS regarding the 2nd Amendment either, but there is little that I can do about it.

President Obama actually agrees that there exists a Constitutional framework for the separation of church and state, but argues that his "faith-based" programs are different from those of the Dubya administration, and meet all constitutional tests. As a side note, The Mormon Church has refused to participate in the Administration's "initiatives" program, and all churches are free to opt out.

And lastly, the Washington Catholic Diocese has given an "ultimatum" the the City of Washington because of an upcoming piece of legislation that will require publically-funded Catholic social programs to provide secular services to ALL citizens, including gays. The church is refusing to go along with the changes, as is their right. The outcome is to be determined.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-gay-wed-dc12-2009nov12,0,3335491.story

Peace...;-)

[PSzymeczek]

43. That's where Jefferson's letter

to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptists comes in. They asked Jefferson exactly what the First Amendment meant, when it came to the Establishment/Free Exercise Clause. Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" in his explanation of the Amendment.

[billh58]

45. True dat...

:hi:

[colsohlibgal]

25. JFK

His murder in 1963 was such a huge turning point for this country and the US has not been the same place since. Oh - and no lone nut did it.

It's been a long slide down since, put on steroids by the eight years of the B list actor.

Religion should be a personal thing and not in any way involved with the operation of the country. It should be irrelevant in that sense - but it hasn't been. A lot of it has been in this big USA uber alles mode and those people are in for a big wakeup call from the EU and China. Our days as the biggest kid in the block are dwindling if not already gone because of our insane wars and trade policies.

[JFN1]

26. "The separation of church and state should be absolute."

Or...People could grow up, accept reality on its own terms, and finally admit that all the fantasy and myth about a "loving god in the sky" - is just that - simplistic superstition...I mean, come on - we KILL EACH OTHER over who has the best version of a fictional character. Seems to me, we could do much, much better than this.

[Maestro]

29. Absolutely agree

For the tea baggers, birthers, anti-abortionists, religious ideologues, etc...this fundamental constitutional law is duly ignored.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Can you EVEN imagine Barack Obama saying that?

Not on your bippy.

[billh58]

34. Not only can I

"imagine" President Obama supporting the separation of church and state, I actually heard him state as much:

The new president has publicly affirmed that the United States is not a “Christian nation” (or a “Jewish nation” or a “Muslim nation”) but rather a nation built on individual freedom of conscience. He has even made positive references to non-believers!

See this link to a report from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for even more evidence of President Obama's efforts to remove the anti-Constitutional, pro-church, religious-right edicts of the past eight long years of neoconservative bullshit:

http://blog.au.org/2009/04/29/the-first-100-days-president-obamas-scorecard-on-church-and-state/

Peace...B-)

[edc]

36. No hnorable man or woman

can be bound by two contradictory oaths of allegiance. One may not take an oath to support and serve the establishment of theocracy in the United States and also swear an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[earcandle]

37. Here, meet Ms. Big Sky up front and personal like.

Big Sky

so, does the big honcho in the sky give a hoot about all of the children of the Big Sky,
screaming and crying????

(Kinks cover song by The Content Provider)

[twitomy]

38. Not so fast....

Our laws are basically legalized morality. Its immoral to murder, steal, etc. The churchs role in
forming peoples ideas about what is moral and what is not is undeniable.

The southern black church fought for civil rights. MLK was a preacher. Should he have kept his mouth shut?

The abolitionist movement was supported by Northern Churches. Should they have kept their mouths shut?

Some denominations today speak out for womens rights and gay rights. Should they keep their mouths shut?

I have witnessed many Democrats visiting Churches during campaigns. Should they stop doing that?

Cant have it both ways.

[PSzymeczek]

44. Not really.

Our laws have their basis in English Common Law, with certain liberalizations.

[twitomy]

47. I am not referring to the "legal" origin of our laws

but rather the societal origins. English Common Law is another example of societies definitition of morality codified.

But I guess thats beside the point. Cant accepet or reject the Churchs involvement in politics based on political conveenience.

[Alcibiades]

39. He had to say that to assuage the same folks

who today advocate a Protestant theocracy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Now, "The separation of church and state should be absolute....when politically convenient."

[placton]

46. Mr. Obama - lover of the faith based initiatives

sigh - just like shrub

[cleverusername]

48. Secular politics only, please

Absolutely! The fundamentalists and evangelicals are quick to label sane, thinking people as "secular" and thus immoral. "Secular" politics is the only thing that should exist. Whatever they want to do on their own time is their business.

[soarsboard2]

49. Where have all the Statesman Gone?

It is so sad what America has degenerated to.